Article Sidebar
Published:
Mar 30, 2024DOI:
10.4314/mlr.v18i1.7Keywords:
Article Details
a) Copyright of the content of the articles shall be retained by the author subject to the condition that it cannot be republished in another journal. The reproduction of the article as book chapter requires the acknowledgement of its prior publication in Mizan Law Review.
b) An author is entitled to deposit her/his published article in any Open Access repository subject to the condition that the format and layout shall not be changed. Depositing a post-publication version in any repository requires acknowledgement of the earlier version by indicating the Volume, Issue and page numbers of the version published in Mizan Law Review.
c) Articles published in Mizan Law Review are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND)
Privacy Statement
a) Where the Editorial Team deems it necessary, the editors may remove precise reference to names of individuals in case comments.
b) The names and email addresses submitted to and published in Mizan Law Review shall not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
Disclaimer
Opinions expressed in articles, comments, case comments and sharing thoughts do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Team, or the publisher of the journal, i.e., Center for Law in Sustainable Development, St. Mary’s University.
Main Article Content
COMMENT: The Retroactive Application of Criminal Law in Favor of the Accused: A Comment on the FDRE Council of Constitutional Inquiry’s (CCI) Decision
Bebizuh Mulugeta Menkir
Abstract
Article 182 of the Customs Proclamation (Proclamation No 859/ 2014) provides that cases pending before the coming into force of the Proclamation shall be treated in accordance with the previous law. In Melaku Fenta et al, the constitutionality of this provision was challenged because it denied the retroactive application of criminal law in favor of the accused. In its decision, the CCI declared the provision as constitutional and this comment aims to examine this decision. By examining the decision in light of Art 22(2) of FDRE Constitution, domestic laws, international legal frameworks and the literature concerning the retroactive application of criminal law in favor of the accused, this comment argues that the CCI should have declared Art 182 as unconstitutional to the extent it denied the retroactive application of criminal law in favor of the accused. Determining whether the accused could benefit from the decriminalization should have been left to the court to decide.
